Persistent Link:
http://hdl.handle.net/10150/186355
Title:
Empty categories and focus in Japanese.
Author:
Yoshimura, Kyoko.
Issue Date:
1993
Publisher:
The University of Arizona.
Rights:
Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.
Abstract:
This dissertation investigates how subject and object empty categories (ECs) in Japanese behave with respect to anaphoric construal in the focus construction, and how their interpretive behavior can elucidate the syntactic identity of ECs. The thesis also presents discussion of the syntactic and semantic behaviors of the following three constructions: (i) the behavior of the focused phrases themselves; (ii) the behavior of the reciprocal expressions; and (iii) the behavior of another focus construction, pseudo-clefts (PCs), in Japanese. As for (i), we explore the differences between association-with-focus (AWF) and in-construction-focus (ICF), based on island effects, and conclude that the former, but not the latter, is subject to Quantifier Raising. This follows from Chomsky's (1991, 1992) economy principle which prohibits unnecessary movement. In the case of (ii), the Japanese reciprocal expressions with otagai (each other) and sorezore (each), a nonmovement analysis such as Heim, Lasnik and May's (HLM's; 1991b) is found more desirable than a movement analysis as in HLM (1991a), though there is still a problem, i.e. the interpretation of ECs in the sentences with the interaction of reciprocals and focus. And for (iii), we argue that there are two types of PCs, ga-PCs and wa-PCs, based on semantic differences and movement effects. The construal of ECs in the AWF construction, the ICF construction, and PCs exhibits some subject/object asymmetries with respect to the bound variable (BV) reading vs. the referential reading, i.e. while a subject EC allows something like a combined reading of the BV reading and the referential reading, an object EC does not allow the BV reading. We discuss the two analyses of the syntactic identity of ECs, one by Hasegawa (1984/85, 1988) and the other by Hoji (1985), neither of which gives a full account of the data given, and conclude that a subject EC can be some kind of pronominal but not an object EC.
Type:
text; Dissertation-Reproduction (electronic)
Keywords:
Linguistics.
Degree Name:
Ph.D.
Degree Level:
doctoral
Degree Program:
Linguistics; Graduate College
Degree Grantor:
University of Arizona
Committee Chair:
Barss, Andrew

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.titleEmpty categories and focus in Japanese.en_US
dc.creatorYoshimura, Kyoko.en_US
dc.contributor.authorYoshimura, Kyoko.en_US
dc.date.issued1993en_US
dc.publisherThe University of Arizona.en_US
dc.rightsCopyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.en_US
dc.description.abstractThis dissertation investigates how subject and object empty categories (ECs) in Japanese behave with respect to anaphoric construal in the focus construction, and how their interpretive behavior can elucidate the syntactic identity of ECs. The thesis also presents discussion of the syntactic and semantic behaviors of the following three constructions: (i) the behavior of the focused phrases themselves; (ii) the behavior of the reciprocal expressions; and (iii) the behavior of another focus construction, pseudo-clefts (PCs), in Japanese. As for (i), we explore the differences between association-with-focus (AWF) and in-construction-focus (ICF), based on island effects, and conclude that the former, but not the latter, is subject to Quantifier Raising. This follows from Chomsky's (1991, 1992) economy principle which prohibits unnecessary movement. In the case of (ii), the Japanese reciprocal expressions with otagai (each other) and sorezore (each), a nonmovement analysis such as Heim, Lasnik and May's (HLM's; 1991b) is found more desirable than a movement analysis as in HLM (1991a), though there is still a problem, i.e. the interpretation of ECs in the sentences with the interaction of reciprocals and focus. And for (iii), we argue that there are two types of PCs, ga-PCs and wa-PCs, based on semantic differences and movement effects. The construal of ECs in the AWF construction, the ICF construction, and PCs exhibits some subject/object asymmetries with respect to the bound variable (BV) reading vs. the referential reading, i.e. while a subject EC allows something like a combined reading of the BV reading and the referential reading, an object EC does not allow the BV reading. We discuss the two analyses of the syntactic identity of ECs, one by Hasegawa (1984/85, 1988) and the other by Hoji (1985), neither of which gives a full account of the data given, and conclude that a subject EC can be some kind of pronominal but not an object EC.en_US
dc.typetexten_US
dc.typeDissertation-Reproduction (electronic)en_US
dc.subjectLinguistics.en_US
thesis.degree.namePh.D.en_US
thesis.degree.leveldoctoralen_US
thesis.degree.disciplineLinguisticsen_US
thesis.degree.disciplineGraduate Collegeen_US
thesis.degree.grantorUniversity of Arizonaen_US
dc.contributor.chairBarss, Andrewen_US
dc.contributor.committeememberDiesing, Mollyen_US
dc.contributor.committeememberLangendoen, D. Terenceen_US
dc.identifier.proquest9408388en_US
dc.identifier.oclc704275489en_US
All Items in UA Campus Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.